In the spirit of the Holiday season perhaps people will read the truth and understand why the O.J. Jury had no other choice than to render the verdict they did. I been waiting to write this one for a long time in the hopes that we get enough distance from pure emotions, racial bias (on both sides) and talk about something that is very important to the subject of our freedom. And that is a fair trial. Guilty within the framework of what our law is supposed to mean.

Had I of sat on the O.J. Jury I would have voted as they did. Not that I think he's innocent but because there was a greater issue there. Like most, I would agree that "the rich and famous" get off more often that you or I would.  Remeber these words. I think I can pull it together for the unbiased, intelligent person. Here's why I would have been forced to vote not guilty.

POLICE MISCONDUCT:

We All Know that the law requires a search warrant to come onto the property beyond a locked gate unless there is a "hot pursuit" by the police of a supect. The LAPD went over that fence (Mark Furman was the one who scaled the wall) and opened the gate.  Later they claimed they were "worried that someone who had killed Nicole and Ron was after O.J." That violated the hot pursuit exception and is absurd without exception.

A Detective carried the blood vial of O.J.'s blood around in his pocket for half a day in warm tempatures. A 28 year detective knows better than this. His excuse? I forgot. Not only could that sample been contiminated, they laid off a certain amount of minute missing blood to "evaporation"  despite their claim that the vial had been air sealed so there could not be any possible contamination. You can't have it both ways. If it couldn't have been contaminated due to being air sealed it wouldn't evaporate.

After the blood vial was carried around and after six previous blood tests on the O.J. Bronco there was a "minute" blood residue found in the Bronco alongside the console.

After the blood vial was carried around and after three previous tests for blood on the back gate at Nicole's condo complex, there was a single "minute" six month old blood drop found on the back gate despite having been exposed to weather for this six months period of time.

Two of the most amazing coincidences I have ever heard of in my 60 years of being a crime buff.

The Glove was found between the property fence and the guest complex behind the O.J. house. This narrow strip was perhaps 3 feet wide (or less) and covered with leaves. It was found by, you guessed it,  Mark Furman.  He called other cops to verify the glove and photos were taken before it was retrieved. None of the leaves were broken or disturbed around the glove or in any part of the walkway including at either end. Amazingly the jurors were asked to believe that O.J. had tossed the glove in there for some reason and never was in the walkway himself. Just simply beyond belief. I find it far easier to believe Furman had tossed it in there himself.  And of course Furman had been at Nicole's prior to going to O.J.'s to figure so heavily in this case. This would be the same Mark Furman who would later be discovered to be the detective who had tried to date Nicole and who had used the word Nigger over 300 times while tape recording with a writer as a crime expert.

SUMMARY:

NOTHING AT ALL SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN THE TRIAL CONCERNING BLOOD IN THE BRONCO OR ON THE GATE OR THE GLOVE OR ANY OTHER SUPPOSED EVIDENCE IN OR ON THE OJ PROPERTY BECAUSE  RULES OF LAW WERE BROKEN BY THE DETECTIVES INVOLVED. THAT'S JUST PURE AND SIMPLE FACT. NOW BEFORE YOU SAY YOU DON'T GIVE A DAMN BECAUSE O.J. WAS GUILTY ANYHOW  JUST HOLD YOUR WATER AND LET'S GO ON FOR PART TWO.

 THE DNA AND BLOOD TESTIMONY:

Let's move quickly to the heart of the matter in deciding whether the jury made the only call they could honestly make here or not.  It's not a matter of what was testified to at that time except to say was the DNA FBI testimony and DR Lee the blood expert credible. As I sat and watched that trial I thought back to all the garbage, all the lies, all the framing of people that the FBI had been involved with clear back to their participation of getting Bruno Richard Hauptman convicted and executed in the Lindberg Baby Kidnapping trial and the same with Julias and Ethel Rosenberg in the spying for the Soviets case and executed and in both cases today virtually every crime expert in the country says they were framed by the FBI. The FBI in my mind is about as credible as the guy on the street telling you if you will give him five dollars so he can get some gas and milk for his baby that he will mail you the money back next week. I'm sure many on that jury felt as I do about the FBI's credibility and even if not certainly one would. And Dr Lee the celebrated blood specialist of over 2,000 trials in which he never once had testified for the defense, sat there explaining blood splatters and types of cuts and angles and this and that and the thought crossed my mind that even if he were to be trusted to be more than just a "celebrity witness", what the hell was he saying that even in the slightest proved that OJ had anything to do with what he was talking about? It was at best, testimony to make the crime gruesome in the juries mind and nothing more.

SUMMARY:  Less than a year after the OJ verdict  it came out that  21 cases of DNA FBI testimony on DNA testing done at the same FBI lab during the same time frame that OJ's blood was tested, that there had been misconduct in terms of contaminated blood in 11 of those cases, in an anstounding 7 of those cases the blood was simply went missing between the time the FBI made their report and a defense asked for independent testing, and if you can believe this, in 3 other cases they had to admit they had mislabeled the blood of a defendant with some other blood not related to the case and it was done on purpose by a technician who admitted to doing so because "too many people get off and the police in his opinion, did not make mistakes so he had switched blood samples to match the type blood needed and falsified results to ensure guilty people didn't get off." Off course the FBI claimed that they had had no such problems with the OJ case and stood by their testimony in this case. Are you kidding me? If this doesn't raise at the very least reasonable doubt concerning every single word uttered by the FBI DNA testimony, I don't know what would.

As For Dr. Lee, he was trapped within three years after the OJ trial when he testified as an expert witness to some so called "evidence" that he had "appraised" and the prosecution had given him by mistake the blood evidence of an entirely differnent case and he sat right there and talked for 3 hours in a death penalty case making angles of cuts fit the height of the defendant and volumes about something he knew absolutely nothing about. He, within days, announced his retirement and is no longer testifying as a blood expert.

THE LOCATION OF THE TRIAL:

 The murders took place in the affluent West side of Los Angeles. O.J. lived in the same area. Why would they move the trial to  Central L.A. where they would get lesser educated, certainly more minorites inclined to support O.J. and people with a lessor understanding of how the law works. The answer lies in the latter. They knew, had to know, that those on a jury on the west side would know about the basic premise of law concerning things we have already discussed and others to come. They went with the central district for one reason. Hoping to pull the wool over the eyes of people under a microscope as the OJ Jury was to be and deceive them with the testimony of absolutely nothing relevant to the case at hand. They were racist from the jump in assuming the minorites would be too stupid to figure out they had no case without using tainted, and irrelevant but inflamatory  evidence.

THE PROSECUTORS:

The only capitol crimes (murder) high profile prosecutor available at that time was a woman working out of the South Bay area and was widely considered to be a person whose political ambitions and unwillingness to prosecture weak cases was about as large as they could be. What District Attorney Ira Reiner came up with was Marsha Clark who was totally incompetent and who spent hours and day and weeks upon hours, days and weeks whining,complaining and making hereself and the prosecutors looking even more inept than they even were if that was possible.  Her trying to "bond" with the jury as a single working mother was never ending as was her attempting to make the case as much about her and Chris Darden be "people like the jury".

Chris Darden was yet another example of the District Attorney's attempt at playing their own race card. Bearded, moody, prone to wild gestures of contempt for O.J. and his defense, this was a rather transparant attempt to convince the urban jury that he, not O.J. was the "real black man" involved and because he was on the side of the prosecution they should empathize with him more so than O.J.. Something along the lines of what we now know as the card "I'm blacker that you are". All of which said to me once again, they got no real case.

DELIBERATING AS A JUROR: 

Let me cut to the chase here. I don't know why the jury came back with a not guilty verdict. Whether I think O.J. did or not (and I do) is totally irrelevant to the verdict in this particular case. In my view every single day in America a poor person is railraoded by prosecutors and cops with made up evidence, inflamatory evidence irrelevant to guilt or innocent (how brutally a murder is has nothing at all to do with guilt or innocence of a particular person). In the O.J. Case I felt the FBI to be suspect at best with their DNA testing. I felt Dr.Lee was "performing" every single minute he was testifying and that not one single bit of his testimony was relevant to whether O.J. had done it or not.

I felt the police put the blood drop on the gate and in the bronco after the fact based on direct testimony. Based on testimony concerning Mark Furman's going over the wall, his finding the glove by himself while other detectives "searched elsewhere without a warrant" and his later discovery as to having a personal dislike for O.J. and blacks in general left at least reasonable doubt as to whether Furman himself had put the glove there.

I felt that from the start to throughout the trial that the police, labs and the prosecution had at least in some cases fabricated evidence, and may well have done quite a lot of it.

What this said to me and says to me today is that we all deserve a fair trial. Daily as I just stated poor people are convicted on fabricated evidence. The rich get a fair trial and the poor don't.  That's the bottom line. But I think in this case and in others since the "Justice system" has clearly shown that they are willing to do this sort of thing regardless of how much money or competent defense attorneys the defendant may have. We all deserve the same justice system but we all don't deserve the same justice system as the poor gets and when you will turn a blind eye to the amount of criminal actions by this system when someone like O.J. who has the very best defenders possible and if you will STILL allow them to get away with it then what you are doing is saying to those police and prosecutors "there is simply no end to what you can get away with in prosecuting someone". And at that point ALL of our rights to even a semblence of a fair trial has ended. You might as well be being tried before an Islamic court. Or in the USSR. Or in a court of Hitler.

As much as I personally think O.J. did it I would have voted not guilty had I been on that jury because in a democracy with a bill of rights such as we are supposed to have, you cannot allow the greater crime of police and justice system people to not be held accountable to the rule of law concerning us all. And anyone accused is one of us ALL.  Concerning all the shoddy police work, all the violations of OUR civil rights, All the lies, all the things that came to light behind the trial, they got it right regardless of why they think they came back with not guilty. Take out what should not have been there and "I know he did it" is virtually all that was left to consider. And that's not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

I was raised to believe that "it is better to allow 100 guilty people to go free than to imprison a single innocent man". I still believe that in a free society that in order for us to continue to be free that this statement must continue to be true. I would have liked to see Simpson be forced to pay for his crime, but unfortunately a greater issue  was on trial here.  OUR FREEDOM FROM A POLICE STATE.